ORDER : Shri Jarat Kumar Jain, J. 1. The Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the Award dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Indore in M.V. Case No.187/2009; whereas the claimant has filed the cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. 2. This Court vide order dated 07.10.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company as well as the cross-objection as time barred. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed Civil Appeal No.1193/2015 before Hon’ble apex Court. The apex Court vide order dated 27.01.2015 allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection and send the matter for hearing on merits of the cross-objection. Hence, the matter came up before this Court and also an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in brief “the Code”]. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the claimant (Respondent No.1 herein) filed a claim application claiming compensation against the owner-cum-driver of loading auto-rickshaw and it’s insurer for causing the accident which resulted in injuries suffered by the claimant. It was alleged that on the fateful day, claimant was going on a motor-cycle and the auto-rickshaw came from behind and hit the motorcycle. Because of the impact, the claimant was thrown on road and sustained grievous injuries. He had sensory lose below T-10 level. 0 motor power in bilateral LL. The claimant has claimed Rs. 15.00 lakhs compensation. 4. The Respondent No.2 did not contest the claim and remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company, however, contested the claim and denied it’s liability to pay compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.2. The claimant sustained 100% permanent disability in both the legs. Hence, he is unable to do his daily pursuits. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000-00 for permanent disability; Rs. 65,000-00 for treatment and Rs. 10,000-00 for pain and suffering, total Rs. 3,25,000-00 which is payable jointly and severally by the appellant and the Respondent No.2 to the claimant. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the cross-objection for enhancement of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. 6. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed by this Court and against that order Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal before the apex Court, hence, the order of dismissal of appeal attained finality. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the cross-objection for enhancement of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. 6. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed by this Court and against that order Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal before the apex Court, hence, the order of dismissal of appeal attained finality. This Court has to decide the cross-objection and the application [I.A.No.73/2010] under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 (claimant) submits that the claimant, who is aged 18 years, has suffered paraplegia in both the legs and shall remain bed ridden for his whole life, hence, the amount awarded for permanent disability is a meager sum, therefore, it be enhanced. For pain and suffering, he should be awarded at least Rs. 50,000-00. He has not been awarded any amount for loss of marriage prospects and loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal also not awarded any amount for future medical expenses. The claimant was treated in NeuroGen Brain & Spine Institute, Mumbai where he has paid treatment charges for more than one lakh rupees. The cash memos are filed along with the application [I.A.No.73/2010] under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. These documents be taken on record and claimant be awarded this amount for treatment of expenses. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has sustained spinal card injury and he is unable to work and is bed ridden. He has suffered 100% permanent disability, he used to earn Rs. 5,000-00 per month and is aged 18, therefore, he is entitled compensation of Rs. 15.00 lakhs as in identical facts Hon’ble apex Court awarded in the case of Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth v. Vijaybhai Shambhubhai [ 2011 ACJ 1445 ]. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant has failed to prove that he used to earn Rs. 5,000-00 per month. The Tribunal has considering the facts awarded Rs. 3,25,000-00 as compensation which is a just and reasonable amount. It is further submitted that so far as the cash memos filed along with the application [I.A.No.73/2010] under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code be taken on record and he has no objection in allowing the application. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 10. 3,25,000-00 as compensation which is a just and reasonable amount. It is further submitted that so far as the cash memos filed along with the application [I.A.No.73/2010] under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code be taken on record and he has no objection in allowing the application. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 10. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 18 years as shown in the MLC report [Ex.P/4]. The claimant deposed that he was under the employment of Satyanarayan Trading Company, Siyaganj, Indore. For this purpose he produced salary certificate [Ex.P/137]. For proving this certificate, the claimant has not examined any witness. In the claim application, name of the employer at Sl.No.6 has not been mentioned. Even in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the name of the employer has not been mentioned. Hence, it is not proved that the claimant was under the employment of Satyanarayan Trading Company and used to get salary of Rs. 5,000-00 per month. 11. Now I have considered the permanent disability of the claimant. The claimant has filed discharge summary of NeuroGen Brain & Spine Institute, Mumbai where he was under treatment since 27.04.2009 to 03.05.2009. The history and examination findings are as under :- “History and examination findings : Patient gives a H/O, road traffic accident 1 year ago which lead to fracture D-8 vertebrae with Paraplegia. He was operated then for D-8 compression laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation. Neurologically, he had sensory lose below T-10 level. 0 motor power in bilateral LL. He had urinary incontinence and was on S-Intermittent catheterlzation 4 hourly with 91 catheter. His UL strength was Grade 5.” Clinical Improvements seen after stem cell transplantation are as under :- “Clinical Improvements seen after stem cell transplantation “Psychological he was convinced and motivated to use a wheelchair back home which he was apprehensive of earlier. He could now stand with push knees splint and ambulate independently with the help of walker. He could easily transfer from bed to wheelchair and vice or versa. He was now able to stand with the help of caliper and brush his teeth independently for the first time in last 18 months which he was not able to do before. He static and dynamic standing balance had improvement significantly. He could easily transfer from bed to wheelchair and vice or versa. He was now able to stand with the help of caliper and brush his teeth independently for the first time in last 18 months which he was not able to do before. He static and dynamic standing balance had improvement significantly. He became independent in dressing and ADLs which was not possible earlier.” Medication Advised on discharge are as under :- “Medication Advised on Discharge Tb Rejuvenex OD 1 - 0 - 0 x (2 months) 1. Advice by urologist : Dulcolax - suppository on alternate day. Keep the catheter, straight and dry in a cotton pouch. Use lubrication each time. Baseline sonography of KUB, every year to check kidney status. 2. Continue rehabilitation back home, and carry out all ADL independently. 3. Follow up after 2 months.” 12. With the aforesaid, the claimant has suffered sensory loss in both the legs and also suffered urinary incontinence and was on S-Intermittent catheterization. However, after stem cell transplantation, he had improvement significantly and he has to go to Mumbai for follow up treatment from time to time. 13. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Kavita v. Deepak [ AIR 2012 SC 2893 ] held that :- “In determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble apex Court, the claimant held entitle to a compensation under different heads as under :- Head Values Calculation Total Medical treatment as awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 65,000-00 Medical expenses during the pendency of the appeal Rs. 1,04,100-00 Attendant charges Rs.500-00 per month for 10 years Rs.500 x 12 x 10 Rs. 60,000-00 Future medical expenses Rs.2,000-00 per month for 10 years Rs.2000 x 12 x 10 Rs. 65,000-00 Medical expenses during the pendency of the appeal Rs. 1,04,100-00 Attendant charges Rs.500-00 per month for 10 years Rs.500 x 12 x 10 Rs. 60,000-00 Future medical expenses Rs.2,000-00 per month for 10 years Rs.2000 x 12 x 10 Rs. 2,40,000-00 Loss of earning during the period of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability Rs.2,000-00 per month x 12 multiplier of 18 Rs.2,000 x 12 x 18 Rs. 4,32,000-00 Physical and mental pains Rs. 1,00,000-00 Loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000-00 Total Rs. 11,01,100-00 15. With the aforesaid, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 11,01,100-00. After adjustment of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 7,76,100-00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of claim application before the MACT till the date of realization. 16. Thus, the cross-objection is allowed as aforesaid.